[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Glice

Gay spanking ahoy.

The argument 'existence of God' always flounders somewhere around the point of the underlying metaphysical system/ belief of the protagonists. Ergo, and argument with yourself is going to be difficult because you've already stated (I summarise) that science and theology are two distinct domains... although I do disagree that the two are incommensurable. Obviously, we have the fact that, predominantly, those responsible for the major paradigmatic shifts in scientific thinking are usually religious - your Einsteins, your Newtons, your Gallileos and the like. What I alway recourse to in these arguments is that science and religion are distinct in terms of their argumentative criteria - ergo, science's economy is one of materialist logic and strict interpretive criteria - remember, although God retains his presence in absentum, the visibility of atoms and the other supposed 'objective' frameworks upon which physics is based are absent except in exceptionally narrow and exclusive conditions - that is, the very, very limited domain of a very, very expensive laboratory. Insofar as this observation is true, it also remains true that, for the majority, atoms are seen only in effect. The contention of my religious side is that I have never seen atoms but trust that others have (in the exclusive laboratory conditions intimated); likewise, I consider that others have definitely seen God, or God's effects (clerics of whatever denomination) and that I have experienced something likewise (although I don't really trust myself enough with anything other than fear).

The crux of my argument lies herein - I can't be bothered to type any more, and I hope I have said something contentious for you to rip apart.

Should you happen to agree with everything I have written, then please consider the following as an invitation for a scrap - You're a big-nosed cockbag with poor personal hygeine. Prick.

yippeeee!!!!

let me start by calling you a limey pig-scrotum licker & proceed--

the first thing i'd question is the implied attribution that the scientific discoveries of paradigm shifters are somehow validated or invalidated by their religious beliefs. while the seemingly poetic thinking that seems to be at the core of scietific theories could certainly have a religious influence (read donna haraway on narrative and metaphor in scientific models), it has nothing to do with their workings or verifiability. any scientific model that requires some sort of god working behind the scenes is just plain unscientific. while newton could speculate all he wanted on the role of god as a cosmic watchmaker, making repairs and such, all that it took to verify his theories was observation and mathematics-- no telescopes were ever pointed at god.

the other problem i see with your argument is that you are forgetting that, expensive laboratory as it may be, the scientific method requires that experiments are repeatable and the results repeatable. which you can't do with a vision of the holy mother of god. so while belief in science requires a certain amount of confidence (a confidence that can be betrayed, like with the piltdown man or the manipulation of innumerable experimental results), there are checks built into the sytem, to allow continuous testing, and revision, unlike with faith. and so science, when properly understood, cannot be dogma. perhaps in a number of decades children will be able to experiment with subatomic particles in the solace of ther kitchens (and verify if our current laboratories are ran by a gang of scammers), much like today's chemistry sets (i almost blew my eyes out once with some exploding blue compound, but that's another story).

scientificism may be a form of religious thought, but science isn't.

gum-diseased spent masturbator.... now write something coherent